Ongoing U.S.-led diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 talks in Kyiv and Moscow by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have revived trilateral negotiations on a potential Ukraine-Russia settlement, yet core disputes over territory, the scope and duration of security guarantees, and verification mechanisms remain unresolved. Ukrainian officials stress the need for credible, long-term commitments backed by U.S. and European partners to deter future aggression, while next rounds are slated for October amid stalled momentum from earlier Geneva sessions. Any formal U.S. agreement would likely require congressional action and linkage to a ceasefire framework, factors that traders view as improbable to finalize before the December 31 deadline given historical patterns of protracted talks and Russian positioning. Late breakthroughs or shifts in congressional dynamics could still alter the trajectory.
Experimentelle KI-generierte Zusammenfassung mit Polymarket-Daten. Dies ist keine Handelsberatung und spielt keine Rolle bei der Auflösung dieses Marktes. · AktualisiertU.S. agrees to give Ukraine security guarantee by December 31?
U.S. agrees to give Ukraine security guarantee by December 31?
6% Chance
$38,078 Vol.
$38,078 Vol.
31. Dez. 2026
6% Chance
$38,078 Vol.
$38,078 Vol.
31. Dez. 2026
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine, which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024, US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements that are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.Ongoing U.S.-led diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 talks in Kyiv and Moscow by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have revived trilateral negotiations on a potential Ukraine-Russia settlement, yet core disputes over territory, the scope and duration of security guarantees, and verification mechanisms remain unresolved. Ukrainian officials stress the need for credible, long-term commitments backed by U.S. and European partners to deter future aggression, while next rounds are slated for October amid stalled momentum from earlier Geneva sessions. Any formal U.S. agreement would likely require congressional action and linkage to a ceasefire framework, factors that traders view as improbable to finalize before the December 31 deadline given historical patterns of protracted talks and Russian positioning. Late breakthroughs or shifts in congressional dynamics could still alter the trajectory.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine, which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024, US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements that are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024, US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements that are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Markt eröffnet: May 28, 2026, 3:39 PM ET
Volumen
$38,078Enddatum
1. Jan. 2027Markt eröffnet
May 28, 2026, 3:39 PM ETAbwickler
0x65070BE91...This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine, which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024, US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements that are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.Ongoing U.S.-led diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 talks in Kyiv and Moscow by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have revived trilateral negotiations on a potential Ukraine-Russia settlement, yet core disputes over territory, the scope and duration of security guarantees, and verification mechanisms remain unresolved. Ukrainian officials stress the need for credible, long-term commitments backed by U.S. and European partners to deter future aggression, while next rounds are slated for October amid stalled momentum from earlier Geneva sessions. Any formal U.S. agreement would likely require congressional action and linkage to a ceasefire framework, factors that traders view as improbable to finalize before the December 31 deadline given historical patterns of protracted talks and Russian positioning. Late breakthroughs or shifts in congressional dynamics could still alter the trajectory.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine, which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024, US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements that are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024, US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements that are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Volumen
$38,078Enddatum
1. Jan. 2027Markt eröffnet
May 28, 2026, 3:39 PM ETAbwickler
0x65070BE91...Ongoing U.S.-led diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 talks in Kyiv and Moscow by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have revived trilateral negotiations on a potential Ukraine-Russia settlement, yet core disputes over territory, the scope and duration of security guarantees, and verification mechanisms remain unresolved. Ukrainian officials stress the need for credible, long-term commitments backed by U.S. and European partners to deter future aggression, while next rounds are slated for October amid stalled momentum from earlier Geneva sessions. Any formal U.S. agreement would likely require congressional action and linkage to a ceasefire framework, factors that traders view as improbable to finalize before the December 31 deadline given historical patterns of protracted talks and Russian positioning. Late breakthroughs or shifts in congressional dynamics could still alter the trajectory.
Experimentelle KI-generierte Zusammenfassung mit Polymarket-Daten. Dies ist keine Handelsberatung und spielt keine Rolle bei der Auflösung dieses Marktes. · Aktualisiert
Vorsicht bei externen Links.
Vorsicht bei externen Links.
Häufig gestellte Fragen